Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-107 (2026)

Parties to proceedings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 11; Shan. Supp., § 4726a11; Code 1932, §8845; mod. C. Supp. 1950, § 8845; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1107.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Comm'r of Revenue for the State of Tennessee, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009).
Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Comm'r of Revenue for the State of Tennessee, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009). · cites it 6× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-107 (b) (2000); Cummings v.”
In Re the Adoption of E.N.R., 42 S.W.3d 26 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 4× “32, and Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-107(b). A majority of the intermediate court held that under its own case law it had discretion either to remand the case for further proceedings and notice to the Attorney General or to refuse to address the constitutional challenge.”
Buettner v. Buettner, 183 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “04 and Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-14-107. The Tennessee Supreme Court has noted that the failure to provide notice of a constitutional challenge to the Attorney General as mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-14-107 and Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.”
Huntsville Util. Dist. of Scott Cnty. v. Gen. Trust Co., 839 S.W.2d 397 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10× “It is the State’s insistence that all of Huntsville’s customers have the same interest in the outcome of the suit as Norma Jean Potter and should be given the same notice and opportunity to be heard.”
Bowden Bldg. Corp. v. Tennessee Real Est. Comm'n, 15 S.W.3d 434 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-107(b) (1980). 4 .”
Tennison Bros., Inc. v. William H. Thomas, Jr., 556 S.W.3d 697 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “04, Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 32, and Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-14-107(b), which all require that notice be provided to the Attorney General.”
Timmins v. Lindsey, 310 S.W.3d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-107(a) requires: When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceedings.”
In re M.L.P., 281 S.W.3d 387 (Tenn. 2009). · cites it 2× “The court did not rule on Father’s constitutional challenge, and Father failed to notify the Tennessee Attorney General of his challenge in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-14-107(b) (2000) and Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.”
Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth. v. UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley, Inc., 475 S.W.3d 746 (Tenn. 2015). · cites it 2× “” At this point, Erlanger sent notice to Tennessee’s Attorney General, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-14-107(b) and Rule 24.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, that the constitutionality of the 74% and 57% Rules had been “drawn .”
State v. Superior Oil, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 658 (Tenn. 1994). · cites it 2× “CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE Prosecutorial Discretion As a threshold matter, we note that contrary to the insistence of the defendants, the *660 record clearly reflects that the district attorney general complied with Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-107 by giving notice to the Office…”
Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Michael Cody is the Attorney General and Reporter of the State of Tennessee and is made a party to this action pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-14-107, since this action questions the constitutionality of certain Tennessee statutes.”
State v. Chastain, 871 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1994). · cites it 2× “04 (notice to the state attorney general is required when the constitutional validity of a state statute is challenged in a civil action); Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-107 (1980 & Supp.1988) (notice to the state attorney general is required when the constitutional validity of a…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-107(a) — 16 cases
Huntsville Util. Dist. of Scott Cnty. v. Gen. Trust Co., 839 S.W.2d 397 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “It is the State’s insistence that all of Huntsville’s customers have the same interest in the outcome of the suit as Norma Jean Potter and should be given the same notice and opportunity to be heard.”
Timmins v. Lindsey, 310 S.W.3d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-107(a) requires: When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceedings.”
RENTERIA-VILLEGAS v. Metro. Gov't, 796 F. Supp. 2d 900 (M.D. Tenn. 2011).
Griswold v. Income Props., II, 880 S.W.2d 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
First Util. Dist. of Carter Cnty. v. Clark, 834 S.W.2d 283 (Tenn. 1992).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-107(b) — 23 cases
Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Comm'r of Revenue for the State of Tennessee, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-107 (b) (2000); Cummings v.”
In Re the Adoption of E.N.R., 42 S.W.3d 26 (Tenn. 2001). “32, and Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-107(b). A majority of the intermediate court held that under its own case law it had discretion either to remand the case for further proceedings and notice to the Attorney General or to refuse to address the constitutional challenge.”
Bowden Bldg. Corp. v. Tennessee Real Est. Comm'n, 15 S.W.3d 434 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-107(b) (1980). 4 .”
Tennison Bros., Inc. v. William H. Thomas, Jr., 556 S.W.3d 697 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “04, Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 32, and Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-14-107(b), which all require that notice be provided to the Attorney General.”
In re M.L.P., 281 S.W.3d 387 (Tenn. 2009). “The court did not rule on Father’s constitutional challenge, and Father failed to notify the Tennessee Attorney General of his challenge in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-14-107(b) (2000) and Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.